High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 9191/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. U Las kar and Mrs. P Gogoi, learned State Counsel, representing the respondents. The petitioners involved in his batch of writ petitions are aggrieved by order d ated 02.04.2004 (Annexure-3) passed by the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. For a ready reference, the order is reproduced below:- (cid:28)OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
Decision
LAKHIMPUR-ASSAM ORDER Seen the order of the Hon’ble Guahati High Court passed in WP(C) 5014/2003 dated 26.06.2003 regarding licences allotted for storage, sale of diesel, petrol etc. Perused. It is seen that licence, for storage and sale of petrol etc. Were allo tted to Sub-Depot Properties in the District. The motor Sprit and High speed Die sel(Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) order 19198, specifically mentions vide Sub-Para-C of Para-2 that the dealer for such products is to be appointed by an Oil Company which empowers to purchase, receiv e, store and sell motor sprit and high speed diesel oil. Further it is seen in t he said Act vide Sub-Para-6 of Para-3 under Product, Supply and Transportation t hat delivery or sale of motor sprit and high speed diesel oil shall be made by d ealers only from authorised retail pump outlets. In the instance case, it is fou nd that the Sub-Depots are not engaged or appointed by any Oil Company. Since pe trol and high speed diesel oil are explosive and combustible and appointed from authorised Oil Company in an illegal Act. This may also lead o danger and cause damage to human lives and properties living nearby and passer by. Considering all facts and consequences that may likely to take place in case of accidental eventually, I feel it necessary to cancel the licence of all Sub- Dep ots appointed in the district for storage and sale of M.S(petrol) and high speed diesel oil. However that Sub-Depot having valid P.D.S licence shall be allowed to carry on the business against S.K Oil. Accordingly the licence granted previously stand cancelled with immediate effect . Issued the order to all concerned. District Magistrate, Lakhimpur: North Lakhimpur. (cid:29) While entertaining the writ petition, an interim order was passed staying the op eration of the said impugned order. An application being Misc. Case No. 1405/200 5 was filed by the respondent seeking vacation of the said interim order. Entert aining the said application, while declining to vacate the interim order, the fo llowing order was passed. (cid:28)26.09.2007 All these Misc. cases have been filed by the Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur seek ing vacation/ modification/ alteration of the interim orders passed in the writ petitions out of which the Misc. cases have arisen. The aforesaid interim orders though passed on different dates, have the effect of causing interim interferen ces with the actions of the Deputy Commissioner in seeking to cancel the licence s of the writ petitioners which have been issued under the provision of the Petr oleum Rules for import and storage of the petrol and diesel. A reading of the orders of cancellation impugned in the writ petitions, which ha ve been stayed by the interim orders of the Court, would seem to suggest that su ch cancellation have been made on the ground that after coming into force of the Motor Sprit and High Speed Diesel(Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Pre vention of Malpractices) Order 19198, it is only the oil companies who are compe tent to grant licence for storage and sale of diesel and petrol. The licence granted to the petitioners under the provisions of the Petroleum Rul es undoubtedly would enable them to import and store petroleum products, but not to sell the same. If any incident of sale by any of the petitioners had taken p lace/takes place, the same would amount to infringement of the conditions of the licence granted and the Deputy Commissioner would be empowered to take necessar y action in that regard. However, the same has not been done in the present case s and no show cause notice has been issued or prior opportunities has been grant ed to enable the petitioners to controvert any allegation of sale of petroleum p roducts. That apart, in the orders of cancellation passed by the Deputy Commissi oner there is a recital that storage of petroleum products is highly hazardous a nd such storage without proper facilities in an illegal act. However, it is not the case of the Deputy Commissioner before the Court that the said finding has b een recorder after any inspection of the storage facilities offered by the petit ioners. In such circumstances, the Court is inclined to take the view that the interim o rders passed in the writ petitioners in questions should not be vacated at this stage of the proceedings on the basis of the averments made in the Misc. applica tions and the grounds urged at the hearing thereof. Accordingly, the Misc. Case is dismissed. However, in view of the subject matter involved in the writ petitions, office is directed to list the same for hearing immediately after re-opening of the Court after long vacation in the month of November 2007. (cid:29) From the above, what is seen is that the petitioners under the provisions of Pet roleum Rules are entitled to import and storage of petroleum products but they a re not to sale the same. As recorded in the said order dated 26-09-07, in case o f any incident of sale by any one of the petitioners, the same would amount to i nfringement of the conditions of the license granted and the Deputy Commissioner would be empowered to take necessary actions in that regard. As regards the findings recorded in the impugned order that storage of petroleum product is highly hazardous and such storage without proper facilities in an il legal act. This court noticed in the said order dated 26.09.2007 that the said f inding recorded in the impugned order was not upon any inspection of the storage facilities offered by the petitioners. In fact, the order does not record any s uch findings. In view of the above all the writ petitions are disposed of maintaining the inte rim order and making the same absolute, subject, however, to the following condi tions. (1) As recorded in the order dated 26.09.2007 passed in Misc. Case No. 1405/ 2007, the petitioners although will be entitled to import and storage petroleum products as per the provisions of Petroleum Rule, but not entitled to sale the s ame. In case of any deviations from the said condition, it will be open for the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to take appropriate action in the matter upon putting the petitioners to notice. If it is the finding of the Deputy Commissioner upon necessary inspection that s torage of petroleum product by the petitioner is highly hazardous and such stora ge is without proper facilities leading to illegal storage, it will be open for him to record necessary findings and then to take actions in accordance with law after putting the petitioners to notice.